Packers Big Board #16

[jleisher]

So, if Vita is there at #14, and all the other top names for the Packers are gone.  I would take him and not reach for someone.

[SpeightTheVillain]

1 hour ago, jleisher said:

So, if Vita is there at #14, and all the other top names for the Packers are gone.  I would take him and not reach for someone.

Seeing as we are on #16. Without any QBs on this board. Thank god this scenario is pretty much impossible

[Packerraymond]

We'll go Oliver 16 and Vea 17.

[ugLymayNe]

I'm late to this party but I have a lot of questions/comments, lol.

In what world is Davenport a better EDGE prospect than Landry, other than a few having a hipster mindset and wanting to be different?

I get you guys undervalue guard on purpose but Nelson being lower than 5 or 6 is a joke.

Also, Edmunds over Fitzpatrick, Landry,?

What do you guys dislike about Josh Jackson, exactly? I think he's going to end up going in the top 10.

[vegas492]

48 minutes ago, ugLymayNe said:

I'm late to this party but I have a lot of questions/comments, lol.

In what world is Davenport a better EDGE prospect than Landry, other than a few having a hipster mindset and wanting to be different?

I get you guys undervalue guard on purpose but Nelson being lower than 5 or 6 is a joke.

Also, Edmunds over Fitzpatrick, Landry,?

What do you guys dislike about Josh Jackson, exactly? I think he's going to end up going in the top 10.

Not speaking for the board, just for myself...

Davenport vs. Landry.  I dig Landry, probably my favorite guy in the draft.  Elite first step, flies to the ball, unreal bend.  Weak against the run (and I'm good with that).  Davenport has the size/speed/power combo that isn't seen all that often.  I personally like them both..but if both were on the board when GB picks?  I can understand Davenport over Landry...take the bigger man when things are equal.  I can understand Landry over Davenport because of two elite traits, quickness off the snap and bend.  Horse a piece.

I'm with yah on Nelson.  Fought for him.  I think HZ has some very, very solid comments regarding taking a guard that high, though.  I'm better with him than most, because I think he can be an elite Right Tackle as well.

Edmunds over Fitz is laughable to me.  Fitz is the much better player.

Edmunds over Landry?  Splitting hairs here.  I can get on board with either, but I'm more for Landry.  I worry about Edmunds age (young) and his instincts.  But, I can't deny his amazing athletic ability...and I think he can play Edge as well as ILB.  

Josh Jackson?  Yuck.  He's more of a zone corner than anything else.  I don't know what Pettine will run, if he wants to zone it up?  ...then yes to Jackson.  If he wants to run more man?  Then no...  Could he go top 10?  God I hope so..that will mean a better player gets pushed down to #14.

[Kepler]

2 hours ago, ugLymayNe said:

I'm late to this party but I have a lot of questions/comments, lol.

In what world is Davenport a better EDGE prospect than Landry, other than a few having a hipster mindset and wanting to be different?

I get you guys undervalue guard on purpose but Nelson being lower than 5 or 6 is a joke.

Also, Edmunds over Fitzpatrick, Landry,?

What do you guys dislike about Josh Jackson, exactly? I think he's going to end up going in the top 10.

I get why people are high on Nelson. He's a hell of a talent, and there's definitely a conversation to be had about adding him, but GB has been very successful with drafting OL in the middle rounds. They have competent guards on their roster already and have historically done well drafting and converting college tackles.

For these reasons I don't believe they really want, or need, to spend their 14th pick on a guard who will most likely command an extremely high salary on his second contract. The largest cap percentages should be allocated on left tackles, QB's, EDGE, CB's, and possibly a WR. That's where the value positions are.